Ukraine Today

Users who are viewing this thread

Weaver

Count
There is some support but it’s minimal. Taxes is where gov takes money to support the population and you can imagine how the tax base shrunk. They probably rely on international grants now. Many businesses are in slumber mode now, preparing to relaunch after the war. Many are still functioning even without profit because it’s one of the ways to support the troops from homes.

On a different note, it’s Monday and we’re waiting on the new rocket attack on the cities. Guess we’ll talk again in a few days.
Edit: Nope. Just the normal amount of rockets today. I hope it won’t be Wednesday. I’ve got stuff to do on Wednesday.
 
Last edited:

Mad Vader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
The first is a rumor spawned by a hostile oligarch as a sole source, i.e. not credible at all.

The second one is indeed based on Reuters article hilariously converted into a video. Russia is obviously trying to make up for lost Western imports due to sanctions, by sending lists of needs to non-aligned countries including India, but big companies won't risk US sanctions or would have to find loopholes. Obviously Indian media is concerned to big up India's importance in the world, because they are small **** nationalists.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Russia is obviously trying to make up for lost Western imports due to sanctions, by sending lists of needs to non-aligned countries including India, but big companies won't risk US sanctions or would have to find loopholes. Obviously Indian media is concerned to big up India's importance in the world, because they are small **** nationalists.
India also relies pretty heavily an Russian imports for their military. So no matter what they'll want to make sure that they are on Russia's good side.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
India also relies pretty heavily an Russian imports for their military. So no matter what they'll want to make sure that they are on Russia's good side.
May also be why the Hindustan Times is regurgitating Russian military arms videos, exaggerating their quality and performance. I watched one that claimed the Msta-S 152mm howitzer was winning the war against Ukraine and detailing all its sales USP and stats. However, forgot to mention: "Operational and combat use revealed that the Msta-S was not particularly accurate comparing with contemporary Western artillery systems. Shells normally land within 150 meters from the designated target. So a number of shells might be required to hit the target. This was considered acceptable by the Soviets. Though most Western 155 mm artillery systems were way more accurate. If the barrel is worn shells of the Msta-S might land within 500 meters from the target." http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s19_msta_s.htm

Ukraine Government removes import duty and VAT on Starlink Terminals just as Elon's SpaceX increases Starlink prices to Ukrainian customers (Starlink dishes up 40% from $500 to $700). True Chief Twit timing.
 
Last edited:

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
May also be why the Hindustan Times is regurgitating Russian military arms videos, exaggerating their quality and performance. I watched one that claimed the Msta-S 152mm howitzer was winning the war against Ukraine and detailing all its sales USP and stats.
Propaganda is going to need to go into overtime for Russian Military arms. This war is proving in real time that Russian weapons aren't really the greatest, and when they make a good amount of money by selling it they're gonna need to try and sell them pretty hard.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Propaganda is going to need to go into overtime for Russian Military arms. This war is proving in real time that Russian weapons aren't really the greatest, and when they make a good amount of money by selling it they're gonna need to try and sell them pretty hard.
Maybe, but in general Ukrainian forces are using similar Soviet equipment. I'm sure the weapons perform better when they're adequately supplied, maintained and integrated into effective command and control. Corruption seems to have undermined Russian supply and maintenance, while command seems centralised too far away from the action to stay in touch.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Maybe, but in general Ukrainian forces are using similar Soviet equipment. I'm sure the weapons perform better when they're adequately supplied, maintained and integrated into effective command and control. Corruption seems to have undermined Russian supply and maintenance, while command seems centralised too far away from the action to stay in touch.
You're right, but its also a massive proving ground for things like the HIMARs and the Javelin, things that have really been a boost to the Ukrainian forces.

And you're completely right about corruption, however the other aspect is that the Russian army was too big and too small all at the same time. The Russians had a lot of different units, but they did not have enough professional infantry to man those units. Take an Mechanized Squad for example, you'd have the three crew and, say, ten guys in the back. The Russian military had the three crew and two guys in the back. The lack of infantry means that every infantry unit lost, like the Helicopter Units at Hostomel, a lot harder to actually replace.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
also a massive proving ground for things like the HIMARs and the Javelin, things that have really been a boost to the Ukrainian forces.
The US still hasn't released ATACMS rockets for HIMARS - Ukraine is crying out for an increased HIMARS strike range.

On the Javelin, the impartial Hindustan Times has other ideas:
"In certain aspects, Kornet is better than U.S. Javelin" which may be true according to a better source http://military-today.com/missiles/kornet.htm
 
Last edited:

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
The US still hasn't released ATACMS rockets for HIMARS - Ukraine is crying out for an increased HIMARS strike range.
Ukraine is never getting the ATACMS for the HIMARs, because they'll use it to actually strike Russia. Russia is already getting a bit stressful when it comes to escalation so NATO and the US can't really just give Ukraine everything that it wants.
On the Javelin, the impartial Hindustan Times has other ideas:
Lol, lmao.

The one thing I do find a little funny about the Russian regime is that they're trying to brag about how great their military is when they haven't been able to take Ukraine for almost a year. How could they expect to be able to effectively fight the US. By comparison, it took the United States a month of fighting to take Iraq in '91, one of the largest militaries of the time with a lot of Soviet equipment.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Ukraine is never getting the ATACMS for the HIMARs, because they'll use it to actually strike Russia. Russia is already getting a bit stressful when it comes to escalation so NATO and the US can't really just give Ukraine everything that it wants.
They'll definitely strike deep into Crimea, but why should they use it to attack Russia? They already have aircraft and S-300 missiles that can strike into Russian. AFAIK the border's only a few kilometres away in the North-East. They haven't seriously struck into Russian as far as I can recall. If it was my decision, I'd give Ukraine ATACMS.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
They'll definitely strike deep into Crimea, but why should they use it to attack Russia? They already have aircraft and S-300 missiles that can strike into Russian. AFAIK the border's only a few kilometres away in the North-East. They haven't seriously struck into Russian as far as I can recall. If it was my decision, I'd give Ukraine ATACMS.
Striking into Russia would be a waist of those assets, and ATACMs make the job a lot easier. It would also piss off the Russians, and when they have threatened Nuclear War over this the United States doesn't want to. That's why we haven't sent them things like US Tanks or Planes.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Striking into Russia would be a waist of those assets, and ATACMs make the job a lot easier. It would also piss off the Russians, and when they have threatened Nuclear War over this the United States doesn't want to. That's why we haven't sent them things like US Tanks or Planes.
The Russians are already pissed off. Hardliners already advocate levelling Kyiv. Nuclear war will continue to be threatened whatever Ukraine does. Denying Ukraine ATACM won't improve matters. Putin is probably the only Russian leader who could broker a peace ATM, by promising his hardliners it's only to buy a breathing space to rebuild military force. Over time without war, the hardliners influence might be undermined. Without peace Putin may well be replaced by a rabid nationalist, guaranteeing escalation. Ukraine lacks the manpower to invade Russia, so, their only option to end future conflict is joining NATO. That's not an option without peace. Unfortunately, too much blood and also too little blood has been spilt ATM to bring both sides to the peace table without external pressure from the US and China.
 

AoC

Master Knight
USA don't really want Ukraine to win the war decisively. They want them to not lose much. Only countries that really want Russia to lose are Baltic states, UK and Poland. France and Germany want peace at all cost.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
USA don't really want Ukraine to win the war decisively. They want them to not lose much. Only countries that really want Russia to lose are Baltic states, UK and Poland. France and Germany want peace at all cost.
Peace poses difficult questions for USA - sanctity of borders, prosecution of war crimes, reparations to rebuild, membership of NATO. So, probably easier to postpone those issues and let Ukraine weaken Russia while their munitions industry profits from the conflict. Difficult to predict what a republican president might do, if Biden fails to be re-elected.
The UK backs Ukraine, but we'd prefer peace. IDK if Ukraine can win the war decisively or if that would be good or bad in the long-term.
 
Last edited:

Weaver

Count
Right now there are several scenarios of how the war can end that I can see.

1. Russia takes Ukraine and Moldova under its control (through purely military means, specops or whatnot). Sanctions are increased, there's a new iron curtain and the cold war, and conflict shifts east where Russia continues to contend with NATO for Caucasian and Middle eastern states.
2. Russia withdraws troops from all Ukrainian territories. Sanctions are partially lifted, Ukraine remains neutral. It's a status quo option.
2.1 Peacekeepers enter Crimea and Donbas. Kosovo scenario is played out.
3. There is some arbitrary demarcation of new borders, Ukraine is partitioned and what's left of it joins NATO or comes under its protection in some capacity. There is a possibility of normalization in the future.

The west has shown that #1 is unacceptable and helped us make it unattainable for Russia. The other two variants are bad for Russia but they are at least something.

But the main point is that as long as Russia does not understand where its own borders are and is forced to respect them the war can not stop no matter how some peacekeepers try. Not because hawks prevail over the doves in the west, it's just impossible on Russia's part. Russia right now is like a BPD person in therapy. I personally interpret the nuclear threats as latent screams for help, not even joking. And not downplaying the possibility of nuclear scenario either.
 
Peace poses difficult questions for USA - sanctity of borders, prosecution of war crimes, reparations to rebuild, membership of NATO. So, probably easier to postpone those issues and let Ukraine weaken Russia while their munitions industry profits from the conflict. Difficult to predict what a republican president might do, if Biden fails to be re-elected.
The UK backs Ukraine, but we'd prefer peace. IDK if Ukraine can win the war decisively or if that would be good or bad in the long-term.

Well, NATO was formed primarily as a response to the Soviet Union threat.
And while the USA has been a massive ally and contributor to NATO (war machine goes brrrrr) UA won't stand empty handed if a republican president would be elected.

And indeed, the weapons industry is profiting enormously from this conflict. Older, maintenance heavier equipment is being sold and can immediately be replaced by newer machinery. So I assume that republican sponsors would also be inclined to help a conflict-friendly republican president get the seat.

And I can only assume that, especially the older fellers who witnessed the cold war, would get a hardon being able to fight such a close (proxy) battle with Russia.
 

Mad Vader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
The Trump base is isolationist and the US hard right is even somewhat pro-Russian. So if DeSantis gets into power he'll have to scale down US' commitment. The old Republicans would have been happy to fight a proxy war and for their military-industrial complex to thrive. But Trump's populism changed the party.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
The Russians are already pissed off. Hardliners already advocate levelling Kyiv. Nuclear war will continue to be threatened whatever Ukraine does. Denying Ukraine ATACM won't improve matters.
It is still best to not prod them when they're at this point. We're not going to be sending those in in order to make sure they don't get any angrier and the hardliners are suddenly moderates.
1. Russia takes Ukraine and Moldova under its control (through purely military means, specops or whatnot). Sanctions are increased, there's a new iron curtain and the cold war, and conflict shifts east where Russia continues to contend with NATO for Caucasian and Middle eastern states.
2. Russia withdraws troops from all Ukrainian territories. Sanctions are partially lifted, Ukraine remains neutral. It's a status quo option.
2.1 Peacekeepers enter Crimea and Donbas. Kosovo scenario is played out.
3. There is some arbitrary demarcation of new borders, Ukraine is partitioned and what's left of it joins NATO or comes under its protection in some capacity. There is a possibility of normalization in the future.
Ukraine isn't going to win this war. As of right now, the best option for them is to negotiate a peace with Russia that unfortunately gives up some of their sovereign territories. Crimea is off the table and so is the Donbas, Russia is likely going to have those. The second they feel like they are losing too hard it can get a lot worse, and that's one of the problems with nuclear weapons.
 
Top Bottom